DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Australians need gun control!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 203, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/24/2014 04:08:34 AM · #1
Sheesh, it's getting like the USA over there. Mall gunmen and all...

You guys down there really should think about enacting some gun-control legislation. ;)

ETA: Respect to your police though... Ours would have almost certainly killed the guy. (we only use rubber bullets on unarmed 'rioters')...

Message edited by author 2014-01-24 04:10:29.
01/24/2014 11:27:25 AM · #2
Originally posted by Cory:

ETA: Respect to your police though... Ours would have almost certainly killed the guy. (we only use rubber bullets on unarmed 'rioters')...


I read that as "unarmed toddlers" at first...
01/24/2014 12:11:48 PM · #3
Beware of the unarmed toddlers....they are vicious
01/24/2014 02:36:37 PM · #4
Yeah... They bite!

Not much more dangerous than a teething toddler. They will gnaw you to death.
01/24/2014 03:01:13 PM · #5
I'm a little surprised... I figured some Aussies would have a good enough sense of humor to laugh at this..

I do think this is a rather interesting event, given how often the Aussies tend to tout their gun regulations as a great example of how to avoid this sort of thing... Still not nearly as common there (although, to be fair, we do have 15 times the population here, so 15 times as common would be expected)..

..

In any case, still hoping some Aussies will come in and have a bit of a laugh at themselves here.

(edited way later in the discussion to remove a doubling of "In any case..."

Message edited by author 2014-01-26 16:23:23.
01/24/2014 03:21:27 PM · #6
There were 365 mass shootings in the U.S. last year. Australia hasn't seen a mass shooting since 2002. Within a mere four years of enacting gun control legislation, Australian firearm homicides had dropped 60%, armed robberies dropped 35% and suicides by gun dropped 74%. Picture Paul Hogan pulling out a bill and explaining, "Heh, thet's naught gun contral. THEES is gun contral."
01/24/2014 03:22:57 PM · #7
Originally posted by Cory:

In any case - I do think this is a rather interesting event, given how often the Aussies tend to tout their gun regulations as a great example of how to avoid this sort of thing... Still not nearly as common there (although, to be fair, we do have 15 times the population here, so 15 times as common would be expected)...

In the first place, it's just ONE lousy lunatic. You're a scientist, you know that doesn't prove a thing. That lunatics and idots may still get ahold of guns and do awful things is not the issue, but rather the frequency with which it happens pre- and post-gun control.

Also, "15 times as common" is poor phrasing. The issue would be "frequency of incidents per 100,000 population" or suchlike. In 2010 the US had roughly 10 gun deaths per 100K, Australia roughly 1...
01/24/2014 04:17:02 PM · #8
Originally posted by scalvert:

There were 365 mass shootings in the U.S. last year. Australia hasn't seen a mass shooting since 2002. Within a mere four years of enacting gun control legislation, Australian firearm homicides had dropped 60%, armed robberies dropped 35% and suicides by gun dropped 74%. Picture Paul Hogan pulling out a bill and explaining, "Heh, thet's naught gun contral. THEES is gun contral."


Eric Holder says a dozen, and you say 365.. I'm not sure where the delta is here, but clearly the term 'Mass shooting' is pretty flexible.

There's a ton of literature on the Aussie gun bans, and the crime rates -- snopes actually does an OK job with it talking about the methodological issues and other factors that make a direct comparison really wonky.

//www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

I don't know where to find the data I need honestly. Can anyone provide me with a spreadsheet of the total number of homicides in Austrailia and the US broken down by year from say 1980 to today? Type of homicide would be really helpful too, but total numbers would be the most important part... I'd very much appreciate it.

My hypothesis is that we'll see trends of overall homicides being similar (both between the US and AU, and in AU before and after the ban), but I simply cannot find reliable data to work this out, and every blasted article is so biased that I can't trust any of 'em.

-- All I know is that it takes one lunatic and one gun to be a VERY serious problem.. I don't actually believe that any ban, of any nature, can actually solve that problem.
01/24/2014 04:21:15 PM · #9
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:

In any case - I do think this is a rather interesting event, given how often the Aussies tend to tout their gun regulations as a great example of how to avoid this sort of thing... Still not nearly as common there (although, to be fair, we do have 15 times the population here, so 15 times as common would be expected)...

In the first place, it's just ONE lousy lunatic. You're a scientist, you know that doesn't prove a thing. That lunatics and idots may still get ahold of guns and do awful things is not the issue, but rather the frequency with which it happens pre- and post-gun control.

Also, "15 times as common" is poor phrasing. The issue would be "frequency of incidents per 100,000 population" or suchlike. In 2010 the US had roughly 10 gun deaths per 100K, Australia roughly 1...


See my post above - I need some data to really answer this, but my suspicion is that saying 'gun deaths' is much less useful than being able to say 'homicides' since we care about people dying more than what weapon was used to kill them, since preventing gun deaths is pretty darn useless if the deaths still occur anyway.
01/24/2014 04:22:48 PM · #10
Originally posted by Cory:

Eric Holder says a dozen, and you say 365.. I'm not sure where the delta is here, but clearly the term 'Mass shooting' is pretty flexible.

365. Here's a list. One lunatic AND one gun is a serious problem, and it's easier to reduce the number of guns than lunatics as proven by the country you brought up.
01/24/2014 04:34:19 PM · #11
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

Eric Holder says a dozen, and you say 365.. I'm not sure where the delta is here, but clearly the term 'Mass shooting' is pretty flexible.

365. Here's a list. One lunatic AND one gun is a serious problem, and it's easier to reduce the number of guns than lunatics as proven by the country you brought up.


My point here should have been clear. This man had a gun... He was a lunatic - fortunately, he wasn't out to kill anyone.

I do think I like your definition of 'mass shooting' better, since you're quite right about the traditional usage being more appropriately labeled "Mass Death by Shooting"...

In any case, this incident proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it COULD have happened again. I'm as glad as anyone that they haven't had any more killing sprees like that one, but it does make one wonder why - given that it's clearly not impossible...

I wonder - Do you think that those who would seek to do this would be so discouraged by a lack of legal firearms that they'd lose the desire and subsequently not carry out their desires to harm others?

You do realize that it would mean that the lunatic in question was unable to acquire the weapons, was unable to build explosive devices, and was unable to create chemical weapons... I don't know, but it seems pretty likely to me that if someone was really out to do bad things, they'd surely be able to follow through on at least one of those, and perhaps several..

I really don't know what's up with all of this, be I'm pretty sure that there's something more going on here, since it's fairly clear that Aussies just generally have less 'drive' to go out and do these sorts of things - since it seems pretty clear that given any strong desire, one of them could still manage to pull off a fairly effective mass shooting.
01/24/2014 04:59:47 PM · #12
Originally posted by Cory:

My point here should have been clear. This man had a gun... He was a lunatic - fortunately, he wasn't out to kill anyone.

Your point regarding one person is both irrelevant to the big picture and a logical fallacy. The notion that every homicidal lunatic without access to a gun would find some other way to kill people is not supported by history or common sense and does not negate the simple fact that fewer guns = fewer deaths. Convenience has an enormous influence on intent. Moreover, your point that this person was able to get a gun is hardly news since, despite gun-rights advocates' delusions to the contrary, effective gun control does not mean taking away all guns, and hunting, target shooting, etc. remain popular sports in Australia. Also not news: your obvious desire to find something contrary to the inescapable fact that reasonable gun control works.

Message edited by author 2014-01-24 17:00:19.
01/24/2014 05:20:53 PM · #13
Originally posted by Cory:



ETA: Respect to your police though... Ours would have almost certainly killed the guy. (we only use rubber bullets on unarmed 'rioters')...


I was surprised to see this too! It doesn't happen all the time like that here. I'm just guessing but I think he could have been known to the police.
01/24/2014 05:28:46 PM · #14
Originally posted by scalvert:

... and suicides by gun dropped 74%.

This is the overlooked statistic -- I think it is pretty well established that easy available of a handgun is the most important factor in determining whether or not a person with suicidal ideation carries out the act, and I think in the US there are more suicides than homicides committed with guns.

There may be little we can do to prevent someone willing to die from shooting a bunch of other people (c.f. suicide bombers), but we can certainly prevent many more from taking their own lives by making guns (especially handguns) less readily available.
01/24/2014 06:15:22 PM · #15
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by scalvert:

... and suicides by gun dropped 74%.

This is the overlooked statistic -- I think it is pretty well established that easy available of a handgun is the most important factor in determining whether or not a person with suicidal ideation carries out the act, and I think in the US there are more suicides than homicides committed with guns.

There may be little we can do to prevent someone willing to die from shooting a bunch of other people (c.f. suicide bombers), but we can certainly prevent many more from taking their own lives by making guns (especially handguns) less readily available.


I've heard that the Australian government only counts "certain" cases as suicide, such that falls from windows or buildings, overdoses, and other deaths without a letter aren't considered suicides, whereas all gun-suicides are counted. Just a small point for error in these numbers. Still it DOES seem like this impact is relatively clear. I would argue that gun control does seem to limit suicides more effectively than homicides.
01/24/2014 06:24:46 PM · #16
Originally posted by scalvert:

Also not news: your obvious desire to find something contrary to the inescapable fact that reasonable gun control works.


With all due respect, get a clue dude. :D

I clearly asked for data, and stated that I'm not sure of what the truth is, and that most of the stuff I read on the subject is very obviously biased - and you come back with that? Honestly useless and insulting.

This is all in good fun, but do try to keep your claims about my motivations rooted in reality. You seem to read or reference mostly biased crap and yet you seem to claim that you're somehow unbiased, and that's just frustrating. I express doubt in the data presented by all parties, and you express absolutely faith in your side of the argument while trying to claim that I am the one being obstinate and biased- and that is DOUBLY frustrating.

Now - can you, or anyone, actually provide the data points I asked for from a reliably disinterested 3rd party, or at least something official from each government?

I'd love to see, for the US and AU - by year for the period 1980 through 2013:
Total Homicides
Total Gun Homicides
Violent Assaults

I honestly don't beleive that any of us can make solid statements without a reliable set of data.
01/24/2014 06:37:43 PM · #17
Australian Institute of Criminology

more stats here

Message edited by author 2014-01-24 18:46:42.
01/24/2014 07:10:04 PM · #18
Originally posted by Stagolee:

Australian Institute of Criminology

more stats here


That's some good data.

I think we could start drawing conclusions based on that, but can we possibly get the American side of this too? (I'd go looking, but right now I'm packing up so I can leave early in the morning for Austin, TX.)
01/24/2014 07:15:30 PM · #19
//www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
01/24/2014 07:19:36 PM · #20
Originally posted by Cory:

I really don't know what's up with all of this, be I'm pretty sure that there's something more going on here, since it's fairly clear that Aussies just generally have less 'drive' to go out and do these sorts of things - since it seems pretty clear that given any strong desire, one of them could still manage to pull off a fairly effective mass shooting.

You've hit the nail on the head here mate. We're just all too damn lazy to give enough of a shit to be bothered to go to all that bloody effort. Far too laid back for any of that crap.
01/24/2014 07:31:50 PM · #21
More from the CDC:

Table 34 (page 1 of 4). Death rates for homicide, by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age: United States, selected years 19502010 ... (PDF file, link to spreadsheet)

Table 20 (page 1 of 4). Age-adjusted death rates for selected causes of death, by sex, race, and Hispanic origin: United States, selected years 19502010 ... (PDF file, link to spreadsheet)
01/24/2014 07:35:07 PM · #22
Also more interesting stats from the CDC.

The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2010 were suicide (61.2%) and homicide (35.0%). The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) was 10.1 in 2010, unchanged from the rate in 2009 (see Internet Tables I1 and I2, available from //www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04_ tables.pdf). The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide increased 3.4% in 2010 from 2009, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.35%
01/24/2014 07:40:40 PM · #23
Originally posted by Cory:

You seem to read or reference mostly biased crap and yet you seem to claim that you're somehow unbiased, and that's just frustrating. I express doubt in the data presented by all parties, and you express absolutely faith in your side of the argument while trying to claim that I am the one being obstinate and biased- and that is DOUBLY frustrating.

You're projecting. Hard.
01/24/2014 08:15:18 PM · #24
I live in a town in Western Colorado in which there are guns in probably 50+% of the homes, and we've never had a mass shooting.

Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens
01/24/2014 08:27:13 PM · #25
Hmm... I still can't find the data I'm looking for in those links. Stagolee provided perfect data for his country - I really want to compare the two in a meaningful way, but data on one year isn't sufficient, nor is historical hispanic data. Maybe I just missed the table - please point it out if I did.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 02/23/2019 05:29:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/23/2019 05:29:13 AM EST.